text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
18 Points
Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|6 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|3,017 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)
I thank my opponent for accepting my resolution, and I must debate the PRO in this debate. I have no parameters to establish in the scope of the resolution of this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my contentions.
Contention 1: Global warming and climate change are real threats that will be devastating to the human population if not controlled.
The threat of global warming and climate change can be disastrous for the entire human community if allowed to accelerate and continue to spiral out of control. This is not construed to the human race, but also for the entire global environment and species therein.
Sub-point 1a: Global warming is a real issue.
Scientific evidence points to the poignant truth that global warming as a result from increases of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including the following as NASA report: "Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth's climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth's orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands." Effects of such increases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has resulted in ocean acidification, retreat of glaciers, shrinking ice sheets, etc. The following graph shows the trend in the increase of global warming.
Sub-point 1b: The warming of the earth will lead to disastrous consequences.
Global warming will lead to consequences disastrous for the maintenance of the human community, considering the following: There will be more intense hurricanes considering the pumping of warmer water into the atmosphere as well as more droughts and wildfires due to higher temperatures. The NRDC explains the occurrence of such consequences already occurring (in my cited evidence), including the increase of more intense hurricanes.
Contention 2: The endeavor to stop global warming will lead to additional benefits for the human community outside of the scope of global warming.
In addition to reducing the effects of global warming, the plight and actions in order to stop global warming will lead to additional good consequences:
Sub-point 2a: The reduction of the use of fossil fuels brings many benefits.
With the reduction of the demand of the use of fossil fuels, energy independence for countries would be much stronger considering they wouldn't have to submit to the rules of other nations or their interests, and the reduction of fossil fuels use would be a reduction in air pollution, which has serious effects: "Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes." The drilling for fossil fuels can also be reduced with the decreased demand, meaning that these environmental impacts can also be reduced: "Concerns over new drilling amount to more than just a worry about spills. To find potential oil reserves, researchers send seismic waves into the ground. The waves bounce back to reveal the buried topography and can hint at a possible reserve. But seismic noise disorientates whales and leads to mass beachings, said Richard Charter, a government relations consultant for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund." This is not including the oil spills that may result.
Sub-point 2b: Global warming is detrimental to the economy and ridding of it can aid it.
Podesta explains: "In the United States, the potential economic impacts on regional economic development are many. Droughts and loss of soil moisture from a warming climate are predicted to cause a lowering of water tables, with potentially devastating economic impacts to agricultural communities throughout the Great Plains.
Direct impacts from global warming on regional economies will also include a serious blow to the timber industry from increased prevalence of pests like the southern pine beetle, slower growth rates for trees, and more frequent wildfires. This would mean a decrease in revenue for producers of $1 billion to $2 billion per year. For resource-dependent states and industries, whether you are calculating expected agricultural yields or changes in hydroelectric energy production from melting snow pack, global warming has real consequences for businesses and investors.Additionally, states face substantial policy risk from the increasing regulation of carbon, particularly where dominant industries are tied to energy generation and use. Coal producing states and those with larger shares of coal-based electricity, for example, have a strong interest in ensuring a rapid shift to technologies capable of capturing and storing carbon, to ensure a place for coal in a carbon-constrained world. Across our industrial heartland, the regional economy will depend on the ability of manufacturing firms to successfully anticipate global market demands and regulatory mandates for automobiles that use less gas, or run on entirely new forms of energy. Companies that fail to respond to this changing policy landscape will face increasing liability for climate impacts, while those that embrace new technology can capture new and vibrant markets."
"Climate Change: Evidence." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://climate.nasa.gov...;.
"Global Warming." Elmhurst College. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.elmhurst.edu...;.
"Consequences of Global Warming - Global Warming Effects | NRDC." Natural Resources Defense Council – The Earth's Best Defense. NRDC. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nrdc.org...;.
Podesta, John. "Global Warming's Toll on the Economy." Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.americanprogress.org...;.
My case is essentially a counter case to my opponents, so it refutes his arguments in and of itself.
1. Global warming, true?
Much of the data that claims the world is heating is actually unreliable, the classic examples (cited in most global warming editorials) is the ground heaters that show massive increases, yet the funny thing is they are unreliable.
First, these scanners started seeing heat at certain times, mainly around 2000. At the same time, many of these stations where previously recording no change. But in 2000, many of the recorders where moved or things where built. Many where found like this. One started seeing increased temperatures, BUT the time it saw an increase is when an are conditioner was installed next to it. [1] Now this is a problem as the air conditioner emits hot air, hence the increases in these modules can be linked to the air conditioner.
Many of the recorders used where moved into urban areas when previously where rooted in the suburbs. They saw an increase, obviously, they installed them next to roads, asphalt reflects heat, metal buildings, same problems as roads, and then again a lot near air conditioners. A kid could see the problems with this.
Other stations saw growth if they where rooted in suburbs, then the suburbs expanded in population, more houses roads etc. [2] As we can see this has serious problems as these highly cited materials fall into one basic problem: The extra asphalt, man made heating objects therefore emit heat near the censors confounding the result, hence there is a likely hood many of the stats you cite are, well, unreliable.
Further many of the large studies that show global warming are highly exaggerated, and have been found of fraud accounts. Hence the data my opponent cites is data, but whether or not the data is fabricated is another question. [3]
89% of global warming detectors failed to meet accuracy standards due to the reasons above. [8]
http://a-sceptical-mind.com... (graphs)
My graphs aren't posting anymore, its really annoying, is it like this for everybody? I cant ask Ima for cnfidnetial reasons.
2. Polar ice is expanding
We can see from data in Greenland that the ice and snow is actually expanding, not decreasing like Al Gore would claim. As we can see:
"Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year." [4]
Cold war satellites (during time of their function), find that the ice is expanding continually in Greenland, and not decreasing. These stations first received 4 feet of snow, per fall, but in 2006 many of the stations where semi-burried by the snow. The site, formerly alive, is now buried in snow, while greenland ice expands. [5]
Now what about overall arctic ice volume? Using US navy data the volume of the ice is increasing and the ice is expanding. [6]
"The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice." [6]
So the thin ice is being defeated, this implies that the ice is getting thicker, this requires colder temperatures, this is an "arrow to the knee" for global warming proponents. How can ice get thicker under warmer temperatures, and how can formerly thin ice get thicker?
3. Global cooling?
Now, this is generally pushed to the side in most climate change debates. Well yaddy blah blah blank my liberal science teacher said X. People are mainly going of knee jerk reactions look towards the "majority".
Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. [7] Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease.
"As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states." [8]
4. Even if the earth is warming, it may be natural.
http://www.forbes.com... (page two graph)
Due to the predicatable fluctuations, we can assume we could predict the cycles and it also shows that global warmign is also caused by a natural cause.
http://www.isil.org... (half way down graph[s])
This also shows the earths temperture is constantly changing, and we can assume it is a natural fluctuation. With this data, the resolution is negated as even if you prove the global wamring scare, you need to explain the natura fluctuations which easily explain it. If global warmign exists, the governments CANT do anything to stop natural cycles, hence it would be a waste of reasources.
5. Economic harms of regulations
First if we assume humans create this phenomona, we must ask what is the cause? The most common claim is human CO2 and oil usage, natural gas etc. But these regulations DO harm the economy.
Many of tese regulations are huge costs to buisness, this is hard on them as now they must eiher give up or find ways to compensate (fire workers, or declare bankrupsy), and then no body is helped. These regulations hurt buisness by raising costs, and higher costs to buisness hurt the companies, econ 101.
Further, many of these regulations outsoruce jobs for the reason above, or actually make it impossible to do X here, so they do X in china as they can actually do stuff there. One perfect regulaton is the congress' plan to regulate 85% of energy, this harms big time. It is estimated to lease 85% of our energy, and prevent them from drilling on areas that could sustain us from Saudi Arabias imports for 30 years. [9] So these regulations FORCE other countries to take our supplies, well not take, but replace and indirectly take out jobs. Sorry, tese regulaitosn hurt us.
My case disproves global warming claims, and proves if global warming occurs it is likely natural, hence if it doesn't exist its a waste of time, if it does exist but is natural its a waste of time, if the earth is cooling it is a waste of time, and if it hurts the economy it is one colstly downside. My case esentially refutes my opponents, and I used facts. I urge a CON vote.
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://onforb.es...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://bit.ly...
[7] http://on.wsj.com...
[8] http://bit.ly...
[9] http://bit.ly...
[10] http://bit.ly...
Logistics of the debate: Based on the current case my opponent has posted, my burden for this debate is the following: (1) I must prove that the evidence for global warming is sound and that it is a serious problem for the world population. (2) I must also prove that the benefits of stopping global warming outweigh the harms.
Truth of Global warming: The debate really seems to come down to the evidence portion when analyzing the reality of global warming, and while my opponent posts heavy amounts of evidence in order to prove his point, when we look at the evidence itself, it can all be turned. The first piece we should look at it evidence [2], where he talks about how air conditioners skew the data, but the problem with this piece of evidence is that it only looks at the United States. The United States isn't the only country testing for global warming, and his evidence is mute about what organization specifically was doing this study, implying that there could be more organizations also studying global warming in different fashions. Second, his evidence [1] and [2] seriously underestimates the capabilities of the scientists conducting these studies. The scientists are aware of the urban heat island effect, which is why they correct the data in correlation to the setting of control variables, and in the end, the evidence of global warming is still represented in the trends. His evidence [3] is only speaking in the terms of the larger studies rather than on every study, meaning that this is underscoped as well, and when it speaks about the exaggeration of heating data in correlation with increases to CO2, it is important to note that while CO2 is the most abudant greenhouse gas being emitted into the atmosphere, CO2 is not the strongest, in comparison to the much more potent methane or N2O. When you look at the graphs at the bottom of this point, it is also important to note that my opponent's evidence is looking at every single place in the world individually. It is important to note that global warming is an average of the global temperatures, meaning that what every single individual region of the world experiences is immaterial.
Greenland: What's happening to a particular part of the global ice caps doesn't mean this is what is happening to all polar ice caps. My evidence talked about the polar ice cap in Antartica shrinking, and the new evidence I was able to research on speaks about the shrinking ice caps around the Arctic Sea, close to the region of Greenland. While I speak about ice caps in general, my opponent only speaks about a particular ice cap.
Global cooling: My opponent requires me to once again to explain that global warming is an average temperature of the globe, nothing too specific to any region in particular. Regions individually may experience fluctuations in their temperatures from highs to lows.
Fluctuations: My opponent is right. Temperatures DO fluctuate as time goes on, but when you look at the overall graphs of global temperature, we realize that while there are fluctuations, the overall trend is increasing. My opponent talks about ages where there were very hot times, even though this was an earth from a very early time period where the atmosphere we know today was non-existent. We know that CO2 and other emissions we put in our atmosphere are greenhouse gases, and because we can reduce emissions, we can reduce the impact of global warming, hence meaning the government CAN do something about it.
Benefits/Harms: When we look at the benefits against the harms, we realize that not only have I proven that global warming can actually hurt the economy, but I have also shown you that trying to solve for global warming leads to many more benefits as well in addition to that, meaning that I'm currently showing that benefits are outweighing harms.
I urge a PRO vote.
My opponents and my case are polar opposites, if proves global warming, mine debunks it. Hence my arguments actually refute his claims, and vice versa. So essentially our arguments are exactly the opposite. So my opponent has to prove:
(1) Global warming exists and/or is man made
This is the only thing he needs to prove, as the rest of his case is irrelevant if humans cant contribute to the warming (hence futile and a waste of time and labor to stop it, its gonna happen anyway), and prove the world is heating up (and if the following thing is not in place, this fails). So essentially my opponent has to prove two things, I have to prove:
(1) Global warming is fake and/or natural.
Now, this debate is easier on me, as my opponent has the BOP (being instigator and pro), and he has to prove both points, I only need to prove one to show a futile effort or a non-existent threat. So really, the BOP is on my opponent.
"Facts" about global warming:
My opponents main argument against the data that proves global warming faulty is my evidence is based in america, aka the surface stations. But my opponents case ignores the point: If we are failing in the US, then why would it be better in other countries? In the US, 89% of those surface stations create false results due to the fact certain obstacles (i.e. an air conditioner) create the false signals. [1] Further what my opponent misses is that this data (much of the date her nasa source talks poetic about) relies on this US data. Further, this data was and sometimes is relied throughout the whole world, so really, why would such human error not coincide. Also, for you to validate your point, you also need to prove global surface stations are NOT biased. Also, this site is based in Malaysia (my 1 source last round), and it takes more then US data, and disproves NASA's famed graphs. [2]
My opponent then claims these "scientists" account for the.... differences so to speak. The funny thing is these scientists fail in other areas in the same thing. Much of their data relies on faulty mathematical equations that force them to do a lot of assumptions, therefore begging the question of their conclusions. [3] Also to prove they account for the urban effects, I think you must prove through studies that they have dummy variables as well.
My opponent then claims my argument on fraud fails to touch every, I understand that, the argument was simply to show many of the evidences you posted may have huge errors in them, hence faulty.
He then goes on about CO2, I will refute this. CO2 is NOT enough of the atmosphere to create global warming, its about 3%, and 6% of that CO2 is man made. In other words:
"That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels."[4]
So CO2, out of the picture.
My opponent then talks about N2O, laughing gas. Over 90% of N2O is naturally produced. [5] Before we can assume this has an effect, my opponent must first now show a correlation, prove it, etc. Saying it hurts the ozone is not enough until you prove humans emit it enough to have any major effects, then find me a correlation, then we talk.
My opponent then claims certain areas (specifics) are not relevant, that first ignores basic statistics and then he knows makes it easier for him to win. Individual areas are great tools, as a minority effects the majority in statistics overall. If 100 kids exist, 10 are sick, that minority has a large effect if we polled are you sick. Also for there to be global warming, the ice caps are logically suppose to be melting (to account for the rise in sea waters). If I disprove this (I did) then my opponents case crumbles.
No upward trend.
My opponent concedes the point claiming what happens in any one area explains the whole, that means my opponents arguments are invalid too. So I extend argument, and proceed to his arctic example:
Now if your interested, there is a moving graph in the source I am providing, if you look at its data the temperature STAYS THE SAME, on average. Here is how they explain it:
"Each frame of animation equals one year. As you can see the temperature does fluctuate but there is clearly no significant general rise in temperature and the portion of the red curve poking above the blue line (i.e. the period when ice would melt) is clearly not growing."[6]
Essentially saying the temperatures needed t melt it are not changing in length, hence ice cannot melt.
"As you can plainly see the ice is getting thicker [refers to moving picture], not thinning faster than Kojak's hair. Polar Bears will not be drowning, the Walruses will not be beaching themselves due to lack of ice (which by the way is normal and not something to get over-excited about) and the Arctic Fox probably doesn't need to go on the endangered species list because of that old faux global warming." [7]
Not to mention growing glaciers. [8]
Global cooling:
There is ~ 11 year solar cycle, the time your data shows warming. The cycle is over, scientists are now drifting to the earth is cooling, or will begin to cool.
"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback." [9]
"Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997... Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold 'La Nina' effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific." [10]
= cooling
(graphs wont post peices of.....)
Your argument only works if global warming exists, and if it is man made. If it does not exist, then only harms happen (economic). If it is man made, the regulations hurt (economic), and the other harms are inevitable, so it is futile to fight it. So, my opponent must prove both, if anything this is a sub point to the overall factors. Plus, another reason the globe is not heating up is because the atmosphere is not heating up, hence refuting all claims. [11]
Vote CON, global warming is a hoax and if it exists is natural, hence my opponents case fails as it fights a nonexistent. issue or a futile natural pattern.
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://1.usa.gov...
[6] http://bit.ly...
[7] http://bit.ly...
[8] http://bit.ly...
[9] http://bit.ly...
[10] http://bit.ly...
[11] http://bit.ly...
Methodology of surface station experiments: I'm not saying that my opponent's evidence is inherently faulty. He certainly brings up a good point. However, the conclusion that he comes up to doesn't make sense at all. The methodology of the United States is flawed, so every single piece of evidence is invalidated when it comes to proving that human-caused global warming is existant. Yes, this is a study that is presented to the entire world, but this doesn't mean that every single study in the world about global warming is inherently wrong because this evidence is only speaking about the United States and how it conducts its studies rather than how England, France, Sweden, or other countries would conduct experiments. Heck, my opponent doesn't even give the specific organization from the United States that conducted this study. Global warming is tested by the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, countless universities in the United States, etc. Why should a specific study from a specific organization in a specific country account for all the global warming studies in the world? That makes no sense. Furthermore, I explained already that global surface stations are adjusted for possible lurking variables for air conditioners anyway by the scientists conducting the study, meaning that the data is not unreliable.
Fraud: So because different studies with different methodologies reach the same conclusion as a supposedly fraudulent one, that automatically means that my sources are faulty. That's completely unfair because it's a complete generalization of all evidence on global warming on the basis of a couple of studies that my opponent tries to prove were fraudulent.
CO2 and N2O: My opponent obviously doesn't understand the chemistry here. I explained already that CO2 isn't even the strongest greenhouse gas. It's the greenhouse gas that is put most abundantly into the atmosphere from emissions. This is not to say, however, that CO2 has absolutely no impact on rising global temperatures. Furthermore, we must understand the following: what we can do currently is reduce emissions and reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases entering into the atmosphere, but once it has entered the atmosphere, how do we get it out? What my opponent also doesn't understand about CO2 is that not all of it enters into the atmosphere. Portions of it enter into the ocean and become dissolved in it, contributing to its acidification, which harms the biodiversity of the aquatic environment and causes negative impacts to communities living close to these aquatic regions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't speak entirely about how much of it is being emitted. Therefore, no, CO2 isn't out of the picture. I guess I can talk a bit about N2O as well here, even though that all I was saying was the N2O and methane are more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, most particularly 300 times more potent than CO2. There's a reason why my opponent's evidence seems to be showing these ideas and facts about how CO2 increases and temperature increases were so small or insignificant, but it isn't even analyzing all of the greenhouse gases.
Global warming=Increase in global average temperature: What my opponent continues to misunderstand is that we are looking at the mean global temperatures and not specific regions. He claims that I ignore the basic rules of statistics, but then he gives only a few examples of countries that are seemingly not increasing in temperature according to the evidence. He provides no proof that these countries are significant deviations, and even when they are not increasing in their temperatures as the evidence seemingly presents, the global temperature mean still is increasing.
Greenland: I never concede the point anywhere that one example is representative of the whole. I wonder where I said that because there could possibly be a misunderstanding that my opponent made.
"Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) Ice sheets are defined as being larger than 50,000 square kilometers, or 20,000 square miles, and only exist in Greenland and Antarctica while ice caps are areas smaller than 50,000 square km.
The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets."
Global cooling: The global cooling arguments seem to include La Nina, which could be a skew in the general graph since it normally brings cold weather.
Works Cited
"The Causes of Global Warming: A Global Warming FAQ." Union of Concerned Scientists. Web. <http://www.ucsusa.org...;.
"Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise." Science Daily. Web. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...;.
"Nitrious Oxide." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.epa.gov...;.
"Nitrous Oxide: Definitely No Laughing Matter When It Comes To Global Warming." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 Feb. 2008. Web. 02 May 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Fraud, methods
My computer deleted my argument, so excuse me if my arguments are mainly quotes and me rushing, I will make a final appearance last round.
"Regions of the world that exhibit significant warming over recent decades is likely the result of a robust urban heat island effect - South Korea's warming climate provides evidence ... Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. ..."[1]
"Likewise, the rate of increase in the annual number of daily maximum temperature 95th percentile exceedences per year over the same time period was found to be 50% greater at urban stations than it was at rural stations."[2]
Quote 1 shows global problems, quote 2 shows urban/rural problems (hinting urban island effect) in the US. Further the IPCC's data (your nasa links use that as a source) are highly flawed. I will quote is from this PHD person :P:
"1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all.
2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off.
3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling.
4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored.
5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored."[3]
Not to mention the IPCC is dictated and subject to government review, and their computer models are subject to easy editing and have been found for frauds (basically they hid data, edited data, ignored data, and used bias computer models).[4] Also more info here. [5]
The methodology AND the credibility are faulty.
CO2, N2O, and all that fun stuff
My opponent ignores the natural factors I have listed for global warming (like the sun, I will bring it up again this round).
Co2- There is no correlation until recently, there has been no historical correlation. In the past, temperatures may be low and Co2 might be high, and vice versa. [4] For there to be a valid correlation, it must also work in the historical perspective. Also to note, even if we created ALL fossil fuels and burned them, it would go from ~380 ppm (parts per million) to 600-800 ppm, under the former amounts this planet has seen.[4] Historically no correlation, hence cannot work, its only .4% of our atmosphere and only 6% of that is man made, and human fossil fuels can barely double the number, CO2 is not a villain.
N2O- 70% is natural, 30% is man made. [6] 5% of the "green house effect" is N2). [7] The low concentrations mean it has no current effect to any large extent. Also, if it has an effect then it must cool the earth or have no effect, the earth is cooling,[4] also:
As we can see from these facts, the earth has not warmed since the late 1990s (90-97) its hard to cause soemthing thats not happening (my (1) argunment, also we must look at my (2) argunment before looking at your Co2 and N2O argunments).
We must look at the more likely NATURAL factors in global warming, assuming it exists. Generally undereported as the IPCC decides to ignore those factors (see above). Now, there HAS been warming in the 20th century, and according to nasa estimates we have seen an increase in solar activity in that time. Now his is important, as if sustained for a while (1850-1997) it can lead to large increases in temperture, then begin to flat line temperture, then lead to cooling. The sun plays the largest role (even in alarmists eyes) in heating and cooling cycles. In germany, people claim to have the highest sun activity in 1000 years! [4] This basic cycle is what is heaing the earth in the early 21st and late 20th century.Further, there is a scientific fact sunspots = more activity, therefore more warming. There is enough sun spots to lead to warming, hence the increases are natural [highly likely]. (note my opponent never refted this, and just ignores my data). Also there is a 1500 year cycle. This creates interglacial cycles (like the one that is ending in which we are in). The cycle is +/- 500 years. It is unstoppable global warming, like what we are in, therefore global warming prevention is poorly thought out.
Overall tempertures
I understand this, I have shown local cooling in these areas which rise the sea (you argue shrinking ice sheets, I countered it with an oppisite argunment). Hence my point was a counter to yours (you used it as global warming, it is hyprocritical to say I cant use it, then your evidence here is irrelevant too). So if my opponent means what he says round 2 AND this round, much of his C1 is irrelevant, hence the main leg of his case.
You never refuted my evidence until now, just claimed it irrelevant. Hence you dropped my argunment (until now) and proved your C1 largely irrelevant.
"This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d'Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!"[8] (so... isn't alaska part of the artic which is losing glaciers you claim?)
"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms (1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway." [9] (wait, so its thickening?)
"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades." [10]So its getting colder...
Global Cooling
No, my argunments also rely on NOAA.gov data. Use 1997-2012 data. downward trend. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... graph wont show, put in 1997-2012, there is a down trend.
World not heating, world heating may be natural, world might be cooling, vote CON, cant fix a non stoppable or non existant problem.
[1] http://www.c3headlines.com...
[2] http://www.co2science.org...
[3] http://www.john-daly.com...
[4] Paul MacRae "False Alarm, Global Warming – Facts Versus Fears" Spring Bay Press, British Columbia Canada.
[5] http://paulmacrae.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.physicalgeography.net...
[8] http://www.iceagenow.com...
[9] http://www.iceagenow.com...
[10] http://www.foxnews.com...
This is the final round of the debate, so I'm just going to go over some overarching themes and arguments as well as give my reasons for voting for me in this debate.
Frauds and Poor methodology: Even with the provision of new evidence about China and South Korea in his rebuttal, the logic that he tries to make is still faulty. He's making the general idea that because specific organizations in specific countries have their flaws in methodology, this means that every single piece of evidence relating to the proof of global warming is inherently faulty and wrong. My opponent brings up a lot of things in his rebuttal that haven't already been addressed in my own arguments or evidence (which has been fully cited in case if the links are not functional), and I explained already about the urban heating studies that the scientists behind this project have corrected their models in order to eliminate the influence of lurking variables in order to provide more credible data. My opponent tries to go against my NASA data, even though this wasn't the only source I listed, and while he talks about how the IPCC has been found for frauds and whatnot, he doesn't prove that my piece of evidence in particular is the one that is subject to such frauds, meaning that he's making another generalization.
CO2 and N2O: He essentially talked all statistics in this portion, even though it was evident that he didn't seem to have a great understanding about global warming as an average of all temperatures instead of individual locations, and while my opponent says that there has not been any historical correlation, my evidence has shown otherwise. There are still natural cycles, as I explained, by overall, temperatures at a global scale are increasing. This is not to mention that CO2 isn't even the strongest offender and N2O isn't the only greenhouse gas. My opponent doesn't even make the slightest mention about methane or other greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. He emphasizes on N2O and thinks he has proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that there is no global warming.
Ice Sheets: While I argued about ice sheets in general, my opponent just took up one ice sheet and claimed this is some overall evidence that there is no sort of global warming whatsoever, and I provided opposing evidence on this subject about Greenland explaining that the ice sheets are indeed decreasing in their size.
My opponents case goes as follows:
1. Global warming is an issue (exists and is man made)
2. Global warming causes disasters and hurts the economy.
Now, my arguments on (2) proved environmental regulation bad. Further, (1) is the most important issue. If 1 is proven not to exist, or not man made I win the debate as fighting a natural problem spending billions of dollars is futile and a waste, and if global warming does exist (something my opponent has not responded too) I then win the debate. I have proven both of these points false. I will proceed:
Fraud and methodology:
Now, my opponent goes on to claim my data is false because it does not cover the whole world, (surface scanners) yet I have proven this. ANY surface scanner in an urban area will logically have a higher temperature reading then one in a rural one. I have proven throughout this debate this dilemma affected all surface scanners in all countries as all countries made this mistake.
My opponent also ignores my case on how computer models (computer models is all of the evidence pro global warming) is highly flawed. Based on all of the computer model data, their predictions have always been wrong and exaggerated. [1] Every model made over guesses the amount of warming and exaggerates it ALL. As the IPCC notes in the book I am citing: "Models still show significant error, important large scale problems also remain. … Important small scale processes cannot be explicitly represented in models … Significant uncertainties, in particular are associated with resentation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change".[1] This essentially means all of the global warming fata is flawed. My opponent ignored this point, although I did state it last round, hence the point still stands.
My opponent then claims my data on scandals is not enough, I actually agree, BUT this does show large studies (the IPCC) are no longer accurate, and if readers scan my opponents sources and then the sources within the source, it always cites the IPCC. My opponents data is now highly faulty on those grounds. The point still stands.
CO2 and N2O:
My opponents claim here is his evidence refutes my CO2 claim, this is actually false. Nowhere in this debate (I have read your responses 3 times just by that comment) did I actually see you do;
a) even find a correlation
b) show that cycles from 1000s of years ago find a correlation.
My opponent finds only a correlation in modern day times in round two, but this is highly refutable with natural cycles. There are major cycles every 11,000 years or so (stated) and minor changes every 1500 years or so (also stated). Now, the current warming phase was highly predictable using the 1500 year cycle data. This 1500 year cycle is well documented.[2] This fully explains the current warming phase. Further if CO2 was a climate factor, if we saw natural increases in CO2 there would also be natural rises in temperature hundreds of years ago, and there is no correlation, therefore the correlation fails on a scientific basis. Using figure 2.4 in source (1) we observe no statistical correlation, CO2 is low temperature may be high or vice versa. This right here disproves the theory. (If CO2 actually had an impact, natural increases would also raise temperature, it did not, hence it has no correlation)
N2O may or may not make warming, but as I pointed out last round N2O is mainly a natural gas, and it does not have enough ppm (parts per million) to have any effects. My opponent ignores this analysis. My opponent also introduces new arguments last round (methane etc, never mentioned before this point) which is a conduct violation and basic DDO informal rules mean these arguments are thrown out. My opponent argued CO2 and N2O the whole debate, adding new substances last round is a conduct violation AND is discounted. May the judge rule "jury, ignore the previous statement."
Ice Sheets
You NEVER argued overall ice sheets, you argued the same ones I argued, hence your argumentation here is a LIE. I have argued this whole debate:
Northern ice expanding
Southern ice expanding
Various glaciers also expanding
I covered almost every glacier, they are all expanding. My opponent this round actually dodges last rounds argumentation, hence I win the point.
My opponent dropped arguments
Global cooling
Computer models (all of global warming "evidence") is faulty
Global warming does not exist (my opponent abandoned this idea round 3)
My opponent dropped some of the 3 most critical sub points (two of them prove global warming is actually false) hence my opponent already loses the debate. Voting issues:
1) I have proven global warming is fake
2) I have proven if global warming exists, it is more likely due to sun cycles NOT emissions
3) My opponent dropped vital points.
VOTE CON, it is futile to spend money on a natural occurrence OR it is futile to fight a non existent problem.
[1] MacRae, Paul. " Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears." Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010.
[2] Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery. "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 6 years ago
Conduct: This point goes to con since pro, to me, put forth little effort.
Spelling and Grammar: This point should be a tie.
Convincing Arguments: Con's arguments were more in depth and better than pro's. He refuted all of pro's points and defended his own. In the end, pro did not really address the arguments.
Sources: These points should go to con since he had way more sources than pro. And on top of that, they were better and more bipartisan than pro's.
All in all, I think pro put little effort into the debate. His sloppy, unorganized arguments backed up with few sources can attest to that. In the end, con accurately defeated all of pro's points and defended all of his points well. Victory to con.
Posted by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: CON proved that it would be foolish for people to work to try and affect a natural process and even put this natural process into extreme doubt. You can't end climate change if climate change doesn't exist unnaturally or at all.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro puts very little effort into the debate, and lacks an extreme amount of organization. I felt con did perfect in both areas as well as giving great sources.
Vote Placed by awesomeness 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: The contender had better contentions and refutations Better formating too !
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
35/2 Soi Yommarat, Saladaeng Silom 10500(Show on map)
(0 Reviews)
Welcome to...
Park Saladaeng Boutique Guesthouse
Park Saladaeng is a contemporary boutique guest house located in the heart of Bangkok's Silom-Saladaeng area on Soi Yommarat. We are located in walking distance from
the Saladaeng Station on the BTS Sky Train, and the Silom MRT Subway station.
Our three storey walk-up guest house has Ground Floor Patio rooms, and the upper floors; Queen Deluxe rooms , King Superior rooms and Studio Rooms. All rooms are decorated
with a blend of traditional and contemporary Thai accents.
Our rooms can accomdate up to two adults - No children under 18 are allowed. check in time is 14.00hrs check out time 12.00 noon.
• Check In : 14:00
• Check Out : 12:00
• GMT Time : +07:00 - Bangkok, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh,Jakarta
Suvarnabhumi International Airport (31.1 km)
Canadian Embassy - 0 km
Lumpini Park - 0.3 km
Score Breakdown
Read reviews
Hear it directly from our travelers
(0 Reviews)
Back to Top

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Document Type
Conference publication
Publication details
Pervan, SJ & Johnson, LW 2000, 'Reciprocity as a fundamental building block of relationship marketing', in A O'Cass (ed.), Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge: Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference, Gold Coast, Qld., 28 November - 1 December, Griffith University Press, Gold Coast, Qld., pp. 955-959.
The primary purpose of this paper is to (1) highlight the need to understand in greater detail what a marketing relationship actually is and (2) provide an introductory examination of the role of reciprocity in the development of relationships. Reciprocity, the fitting and proportional exchange of good for good, is proposed as being a fundamental process in relational exchange. This construct is briefly reviewed, along with the critical exchange issues of power and equity. We propose that reciprocity is an essential consideration in determining the impact of key antecedents on relationship marketing outcomes.


text:
Rita Ora in London on March 6, at the NME Awards in London on Feb. 29, and at London Fashion Week on Feb. 19.
Photo: Getty Images
You guys have heard of Rita Ora, right? The lovely, talented lady from Kosovo signed to Jay-Z's Roc Nation? She's that platinum-tressed lissome songstress behind such chunz (yes, that's supposed to sound like an English accent) as "Hot Right Now" with DJ Fresh and the more recent summertime banger "How We Do (Party)" which was formerly known as "Party And Bulls***"? Anyways, her album is going to be bats-in-the-belfry bonkers because it is rumored to feature production from Drizzy, The-Dream, and superproducers Stargate (!!!!!!!!).
Total nerdly sidebar that is for like 4% of you BUT did you guys read 'The New Yorker' article about Stargate and Ester Dean (she's considered a 'Top Liner' which basically means she barfs pure hook diamonds from her brain)? If not, you totally should because it is a fascinating behind-the-scenes peek into the ingredients of all your favorite songs, like basically every super-sticky, ear-wormy Rihanna song in the last couple years.)
**Back from the sidebar. So, I first heard of Rita in the late summer of 2009 because FULL DISCLOSURE I interviewed her for her bio and learned a ton about how much pride she had in being recognized for her cultural heritage (little known fact, she was [at the time] the first Kosovan to be on MTV) and the fact that prior to being discovered by A&R impresario Jay Brown from Roc Nation and you know, MEETING JAY-Z, she was working at a sneaker store on Portobello Road and recording songs on a spectacularly beat up laptop.
When I met her, Rita was wearing jean shorts (#teamjorts) and a TopShop sweater and we talked about all of her major fashion influences (Amy Winehouse was a big one since they'd gone to the same performing arts academy... and she was BIG on Balmain because this was the year EVERYONE wore those band jackets) and then she introduced me to a really interesting notion about how she was really "over" the statement handbag and how it didn't resonate with her age group (she was 19). What I recall from our several hours chinwag was that she was incredibly well adjusted and loved cracking herself up. She had a good laugh--sorta husky but sparkly.
Now that it's a few years later and she's undeniably doing her, I'm really stoked for her especially since it's been rewarding to watch her fashion sense evolve. I love when she does her Gwen Stefani thing with the crop tops and the bright red lipstick and as much as I adore her in retro, itty-bitty shorts I am HEAVY into this monochromatic pantsuit situation she's been stunting in. The tailored menswear cues are refreshing and fully grown.
While the pinstriped shirt, cropped-and-cuffed, tie-front trousers do need SOMETHING in the fit department (and I would've ditched the sweater and opted for a different shoe), I do appreciate the gumption and it's at the NME awards earlier this year in all white that the pantsuit is perfected. The fit and accessories are sublime and her strong brows and slight roots anchor the look beautifully. At London fashion week, Rita's sateen pegleg pant, tie (plus tie bar) and contrast buttons nailed it again and this time a hint of scarlet at the lip and dark, black specs make for suitable (ha!) accents. Definitely feeling the gangster moll steez aaaaand I can't WAIT for the album!
Like us on Facebook so we can be friends and follow us on Twitter @MTVstyle to talk.


text:
One day visit to Bath- Things to do
Bath is a town set in the rolling countryside of southwest England, known for its natural hot springs and 18th-century Georgian architecture.( Source: Wikipedia) Bath is a destination to visit if you like history in general or Roman Architecture in particular. The place itself is so welcoming and for me it was love at first… Continue reading One day visit to Bath- Things to do


text:
10 films for $50 with punch card
$8 general admission. $7 w/UCB student ID, $7 for senior citizens
$1 discount to anyone with a bike helmet
Free on your birthday! CU Film Students get in free.
Pay lot 360 (now only $1/hour!), across from the buffalo statue and next to the Duane Physics tower, is closest to Muenzinger. Free parking can be found after 5pm at the meters along Colorado Ave east of Folsom stadium and along University Ave west of Macky.
Park elsewhere and catch the HOP to campus
Make a tax deductible donation to the IFS!
Tue Aug 28, 2018
At Muenzinger Auditorium
Wed Sep 19, 2018
more on 35mm...
Enter the info below and we'll send the story to your friend.
Your message:
First Person Cinema: Student Award Showcase
Mon September 192016, 7:30 only
The Student Award Showcase is made possible by funds from the Arts and
Cultural Enrichment Fee. Free admission. The Grillo awards are designed to
encourage excellence in filmmaking and help defray some of the expenses
required to pursue a degree in film production. A total of up to $17,000 of
Grillo funds is distributed each year to four tiers of production students.
Final recipients and individual award amounts will be determined each
semester by in-class student votes and a panel of judges made up of CU Film
Studies faculty and outside professionals. A selection of award-winning films
will be shown one night only. The Grillo Awards are drawn from a University
of Colorado Foundation fund set up in the early '90s by the founder and
former Director of the CU Film Studies Program, Virgil Grillo (1938-1994),
whose dedication and vision helped shepherd Film Studies from its modest
beginnings in the 1970s to an undergraduate program with some 600 students.
More info at First Person Cinema.
To see a trailer and read a review, visit InternationalFilmSeries.com.
Send me a copy too
Looking for a gift for a friend?
Buy a Frequent Patron Punch Card for $50 at any IFS show.
With the punch card you can see ten films (an $80 value).
IFS tickets are only available at the door on day of show. With 400 seats and
rare sell-outs, by arriving a bit early you're almost certainly guaranteed a
seat. We're happy to save seats for anyone traveling from afar--just let us
know how many people are in your group by email. Tickets go on sale 30 minutes
before showtime.
IFS screens films in Muenzinger
Auditorium, west of Folsom Football Stadium. First Person Cinema events screen
in the VAC basement auditorium on select Mondays. Celebrating Stan screens
in ATLAS 100. Admission (unless otherwise noted): $8 general admission, $7 w/UCB student ID,
$7 for senior citizens. We give a $1
discount to anyone with a bike helmet, and you can see movies for free on
your birthday, or if you are assisting someone in a wheelchair. Credit cards
are accepted at the door
If you want to be
guaranteed a seat please arrive early. Tickets go on sale 30 minutes
before showtime.


text:
A lower drink-drive limit that could put motorists over the limit after just one drink came into effect in Scotland on Friday, prompting calls for tougher rules in the rest of Britain.
The changes sparked warnings that motorists crossing the border could be over the legal limit when they enter Scotland after consuming alcohol within legal limits in England.
The limit in Scotland was reduced from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol in every 100ml of blood, bringing it in line with other European countries including France, Germany and Spain.
Police advised drivers that consuming no alcohol is the best way to ensure they stay within the law, though the new limits equate roughly to just under one pint of beer for the average man or half a pint for a woman, subject to variants such as weight and metabolism.
In England and Wales the limit remains at 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood — one of the highest levels in Europe — but road safety campaigners called for stricter rules.
In a survey by motoring organisation RAC more than a third — 38 percent — of British motorists living outside Scotland said they believe the alcohol limit for driving should be lowered to the same level throughout the rest of Britain.
Road safety organisation Brake called for a limit of just 20mg.